F" 

BS 

2735! 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  IN  THE  LIGHT 
OF  ONE    ROMAN    IMPRISONMENT 


inaugural 


T.  COWDEN^LAUGHLIN,  Ph.D. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  IN  THE  LIGHT 
OF  ONE    ROMAN    IMPRISONMENT 


Inaugural 


BY 


T.  COWDEN  LAUGHLIN,  Ph.D. 

v\ 

Professor  on  the  Frederick  Billings  Foundation  for  New  Testament  Greek 
and  Exegesis  in  Pacific  Theological  Seminary 


BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 
1905 


213  S" 


THE    PASTORAL    EPISTLES    IN    THE    LIGHT 
OF    ONE    ROMAN    IMPRISONMENT. 

THE  problem  of  the  Pastorals  is  one  of  the  most 
difficult  in  the  whole  New  Testament.  Any  dis- 
cussion of  these  Epistles  involves  the  one  great  question 
of  their  genuineness  or  authorship.  By  whom  were  they 
written  ?  Are  they  Pauline  ? 

Three  classes  of  writers  are  found  on  this  subject: 
those  who  hold  that  the  Pastorals  are  genuine  as  we  have 
them;1  those  who  hold  that  they  are  not  genuine;2  and 
those  who  hold  that  the  basis  of  these  writings  is  gen- 
uine, but  that  they  have  been  interpolated,  redacted,  and 
expanded  into  their  present  form.3 

Before  any  of  these  conclusions  can  be  reached,  the 
writer  in  each  case  must  decide  on  the  question  of 
"whether  Paul  was  in  prison  at  Rome  once  or  twice." 
Those  who  regard  the  Epistles  as  genuine  hold,  without 
exception,  to  two  imprisonments,4  while  those  who  reject 

1  Plummer,  Humphrys,  Conybeare,  and  Howson,  Findlay,  Huther,  Hort, 
Salmon,  Sanday,   Purves,  Dods,  Gilbert,  Lightfoot,  Lock,  Ramsay,  Adeney, 
Godet,   Bernard,   Shaw,  Weiss,  and  Zahn. 

2  Beyschlag,  Weizsacker,  Holtzmann,   Von   Soden,  and  Julicher. 
'Pfleiderer,  -Clemen,    Moffatt,   Bartlet,    McGiffert,   and   Harnack. 

4  Neander,  Godet,  Farrar,  Renan,  Blass,  Belser,  Lightfoot,  Ramsay,  Shaw, 
Adeney,  Van  Manen,  J.  Weiss,  Spitta,  Harnack,  Zahn  (and  Julicher  if 
Pauline). 


4  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

them  (in  whole  or  in  part)  think  Paul  was  not  released 
from  prison  at  Rome.1 

Any  investigation  of  the  Pastorals,  then,  involves  also 
an  investigation  of  whether  Paul  was  in  prison  at  Rome 
ot»ce  or  twice.  We  have  made  a  thorough  study  of  this 
question,2  and  are  convinced  that  such  a  release  never 
took  place.  This  being  the  case,  Paul  not  only  never 
visited  Spain,  but  he  did  not  make  a  trip  East  (to  Asia 
Minor,  Crete,  Greece,  Illyricum,  etc.),  as  has  been  con- 
jectured heretofore  by  those  who  hold  to  the  Pauline 
authorship  of  the  Pastorals.  The  first  record  of  a  trip 
East  after  Roman  imprisonment  is  by  Eusebius.  His 
testimony  is  very  late  and  many  think  that  he  did  not 
even  follow  any  tradition  here,  but  recorded  the  con- 
clusion which  he  reached  from  his  own  study  of  the 
Pastorals,  being  convinced  that  their  genuineness  de- 
pended on  Paul's  imprisonment  at  Rome  a  second  time. 
This  is  the  view  also  of  such  eminent  scholars  as  Godet, 
Lightfoot,  Ramsay,  Weiss,  Zahn,  Adeney,  .Shaw,  and 
others,  who  hold  that  Paul  was  released  from  prison 
and  made  a  trip  East;  that  somewhere  on  this  trip  he 
wrote  i  Timothy  and  Titus;  that  he  was  arrested  and 
imprisoned  at  Rome  a  second  time  and  that  it  was  during 
this  imprisonment  that  he  wrote  2  Timothy.  They,  like 
Eusebius,  are  forced  to  this  conclusion,  regarding  other 
arguments  for  two  imprisonments  as  secondary,  in  order 
to  maintain  the  genuineness  of  the  Pastorals  as  we  have 
them.  It  is  because  of  certain  passages  in  the  Pastorals 
whose  interpretation  hitherto  has  seemed  impossible  on 

1  Eichhorn,  De  Wette,  Baur  (and  Tubingen  School),  Macpherson,  Bacon, 
Bartlet,   Erbes,   McGiffert,   and   Moffatt. 

2  A   section   of  this  paper,    in   its  original    form,   contained   a   discussion 
of  this  point  which   is  necessarily  omitted  here. 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  5 

the  basis  of  one  imprisonment  that  they  have  reached 
this  conclusion. 

Let  us  examine  these  passages.  There  are  five  of 
them:  one  in  I  Timothy,  one  in  Titus,  and  THREE  in 
2  Timothy.  Two  of  these  are  not  very  difficult  of  inter- 
pretation. 

1 i )  The  first  of  these  is  I  Timothy  i  13.    From  this  pas- 
sage it  has  been  maintained  that  Paul  left  Timothy  at 
Ephesus  when  going  to  Macedonia.     (Adeney,  p.  408, 
and  others.)     When  could  this  have  been?     Surely  not 
at  any  time  during  his  three  years'  stay  at  Ephesus? 
Neither  could  it  have  been  when  Paul  left  Ephesus  at 
the  time  of  the  riot  in  the  Greek  theater  there,  for  Timo- 
thy  (together  with  Erastus)   had  already  been  sent  to 
Macedonia    (Acts  xix:22),   and   was  with   Paul  again 
shortly  after  his  arrival  there  (at  Philippi?)  (2  Cor.  i:i). 
Now  Paul  only  left  Ephesus  for  Macedonia  once,  ac- 
cording to  the  Acts'  account,  and  if  he  did  not  leave 
Timothy  at  Ephesus  then  he  never  did,  unless  he  was 
released  from  prison  and  did  so  later.    Hence  it  has  been 
inferred  that  he  must  have  been  in  prison  at  Rome  twice. 
A  more  careful  exegesis  of  this  passage,  however,  re- 
moves the  difficulty,  as  such  reveals  the  fact  that  Paul 
does  not  say  he  left  Timothy  at  Ephesus  when  going  into 
Macedonia ;  he  does  n't  say  that  Timothy  was  at  Ephesus 
then.      [It  will  be  shown  later  that  Timothy  was  not 
there  when  Paul  left  that  city.] 

(2)  A   second   supposedly   difficult  passage   is   Titus 
i  15.    When,  according  to  Paul's  movements  as  we  know 
them  from  the  Acts,  could  Paul  have  left  Titus  in  Crete 
or  summoned  him  to  winter  with  him  at  Nicopolis  (Tit. 
iii:i2)  ?    In  answer  to  this,  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  fully 


6  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

as  easy  (as  will  be  shown  presently)  to  find  a  time  in 
Paul's  life  when  he  might  have  gone  to  Crete  and  left 
Titus  there  before  he  went  to  Rome  as  after  a  release 
from  prison  there.  No  account  of  Titus  is  given  in  the 
Acts.  Luke  never  even  so  much  as  mentions  him — not 
even  once.  Why,  then,  may  Paul  not  have  gone  to  Crete 
before  going  to  Rome?  It  is  just  as  easy  to  find  a  place 
in  the  Acts'  account  of  Paul's  life  (before  he  went  to 
Rome)  for  such  a  visit  as  to  find  a  place  for  his  visit  to 
Arabia  (Gal.  in?)  or  for  the  doings  of  Titus  as  recorded 
in  2  Corinthians  or  Galatians.  [A  place  in  Paul's  life 
for  his  visit  to  Crete  will  be  suggested  presently.] 

(3)  In  2  Timothy  iv:i3,  Paul  tells  Timothy  to  bring 
the  cloak  he  left  at  Troas.    This  seems  to  imply  a  recent 
visit  there,  for  which  no  room  is  left  in  the  Acts,  as  in 
the  account  therein  given  Paul's  last  visit  to  Troas  (Tim- 
othy with  him,  Acts  xx:4)  was  when  he  stopped  there 
on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  on  the  third  journey,  from  four 
to  seven  or  eight  years  before. 

(4)  Again,  in  2  Timothy  iv:i2,  Paul  tells  Timothy 
that  he  sent  Tychicus  to  Ephesus.     Now  Tychicus  had 
been  the  bearer  of  the  letter  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephe- 
sians   (and  Philemon),  but  Paul  does  not  refer  to  this 
here,  as  Timothy  was  with  him  at  Rome  when  he  sent 
Tychicus  out  with  those  letters.     (Col.  in;  Phile.   I.). 
When  was  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  then  ? 

(5)  In  2  Timothy  iv:2O,  Paul  tells  Timothy  that  he 
left  Trophimus  at  Miletus  sick.     When  was  that?     He 
could  not  have  been   left  there   on   Paul's   journey  to 
Jerusalem    (Acts  xx:i7) — his   only  visit  there   accord- 
ing to  the  Acts — for  Trophimus  was  in  Jerusalem  with 
Paul  (Acts  xxi:2Q)  and  his  presence  there  led  to  Paul's 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  7 

arrest.  Trophimus  could  not  have  been  left  at  Miletus 
sick  at  that  time,  for  Paul  was  only  in  Jerusalem  seven 
days  (Acts  xxivin;  xxiv:i)  and  Trophimus  could  not 
have  recovered  and  come  on  so  soon.  Hence  there  is 
no  room  in  the  Acts  for  these  events,  all  of  which  must 
supposedly  have  taken  place  after  Paul  was  released  from 
imprisonment  at  Rome  (if  the  Acts  gives  a  full  account). 

Of  the  five  passages  just  examined,  only  the  last  three 
cause  any  real  difficulty.  These  three,  it  will  be  observed 
also,  are  all  found  in  2  Timothy,  and  in  the  last  chapter 
of  that  epistle.  The  interpretation  of  these  verses  has 
necessitated  a  resort  to  the  "two-imprisonment"  theory  by 
those  who  would  maintain  the  genuineness  of  the  Pasto- 
rals. But  as  the  other  arguments  for  a  second  imprison- 
ment have  disappeared  and  the  only  one  left  is  that  based 
on  the  interpretation  of  these  verses,  it  is  time  that  they 
(together  with  their  context — i.  e.  2  Tim.  iv:9~2ia)  be 
examined  with  a  possible  view  to  adjusting  their  contents 
in  the  light  of  but  one  imprisonment  of  Paul  at  Rome 
(which  has  often  been  done,  but  with  loss  of  Pauline 
authorship).  Can  such  an  adjustment  on  such  a  basis 
be  made  and  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  still  be  main- 
tained? If  so,  we  are  relieved  from  the  necessity  of 
trying  to  account  for  much  that  has  always  been  un- 
reasonable conjecture — where  Paul  went  when  released, 
what  he  did,  where  he  was  rearrested,  and  why  he  was 
imprisoned  a,  second  time — about  all  of  which  the  Acts 
and  admitted  Pauline  epistles  tell  us  absolutely  nothing. 

An  investigation  of  2  Timothy  iv  19-21  a,  reveals  the 
fact  that  there  is  great  inconsistency  between  it  and  the 
preceding  verses.  Thus  in  2  Timothy  iv:6~7,  Paul  is 
expecting  immediate  death;  he  is  already  being  offered 


8  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

and  the  time  of  his  departure  is  at  hand,  while  in  2  Tim- 
othy iv:i3  he  is  sending  away  over  to  Ephesus  for 
Timothy  and  asking  him  to  bring  his  cloak  (2  Tim.  iv  120), 
which  he  would  need  during  the  winter,  and  for  his  books 
and  parchments  (2  Tim.  iv:i3),  implying  that  he  ex- 
pected to  live  at  least  for  some  time.  Again,  down  as 
far  as  chapter  iv  15,  Timothy  is  to  remain  at  Ephesus,  but 
in  chapter  iv  19  he  is  to  leave  and  join  Paul.  Contradic- 
tion is  found  also  in  2  Timothy  iv:ii,  when  compared 
with  2  Timothy  iv:2ib.  But,  aside  from  these  contra- 
dictory statements,  the  whole  thought  contained  in 
2  Timothy  iv  19-21  a  (which  includes  the  three  passages 
which  have  caused  such  difficulty  heretofore — i.  e.  iv:i3; 
iv:i2;  iv:2O,)  can  be  shown  to  fit  in  better  with  what 
we  know  of  Paul's  life  prior  to  his  imprisonment  at 
Rome  than  in  any  period  of  his  supposed  life  thereafter. 
In  other  words,  the  section  2  Timothy  iv:9-2ia  does 
not  belong  where  it  stands,  but  is  a  letter  or  part  of  a 
letter  to  Timothy  written  by  Paul  shortly  after  he  left 
Ephesus  (after  the  riot  there  and  long  before  he  went 
to  Rome).  If  this  is  true,  all  difficulties  are  removed 
and  the  genuineness  of  2  Timothy  is  maintained  as  strong- 
ly as  before,  although  the  same  could  not  be  said  of  its 
integrity.  This  section  has  always  caused  the  difficulty 
and  has  been  variously  interpolated  and  divided  up,1  but 
it  is  all  one  piece  and  was  written  four  or  five  years 
before  the  rest  of  the  epistle.  This  small  letter  was  on 
a  distinct  piece  of  papyrus  originally;  but  when  the 

1  McGiffert  retains  only  verses  n  and  16-19  and  thinks  the  rest  of 
9-2ia  is  a  fragment  of  another  letter  of  Paul.  He  thinks  (i)  two  authen- 
tic letters  are  worked  over  in  2  Timothy.  A  large  part  of  chapter  one, 
first  twelve  verses  of  chapter  two  and  the  greater  part  of  chapter  four 
are  genuine;  (2)  Titus  iii:  1-7,  12-13,  and  perhaps  parts  of  chapter  one,  are 
genuine  (written  after  2  Timothy);  (3)  i  Timothy  is  the  least  genuine  of 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  9 

first  collection  of  Paul's  letters  to  Timothy  was  made, 
this  small  fragment  letter  was  joined  on  to  2  Timothy 
iv  :8  without  a  special  heading  and  2  Timothy  iv  :2ib-22 
(the  original  ending  of  2  Timothy)  which  had  been 
detached  from  the  end  of  the  brittle  roll,  was  put  on  at 
the  end  of  the  short  letter  instead  of  after  iv:8  where 
it  belonged.  Or  more  likely  still  is  the  supposition  that 
the  original  copy  from  which  our  present  text  was  made 
was  in  book  form  and  that  one  leaf  (that  containing 
the  brief  letter)  slipped  into  its  present  position.  In 
other  words,  2  Timothy  iv  19-21  a  (without  a  heading) 
slipped  in  before  the  last  two  verses  of  2  Timothy.  This 
might  very  naturally  have  happened.  If  so,  every  diffi- 
culty is  explained. 

A   NEW   ITINERARY. 

The  reader  of  this  article  is  invited  to  note  carefully 
the  following  itinerary  linked  with  exegesis  of  9-213, 
which  makes  clear  that  this  section  is  a  letter,  or  part 
of  one,  written  shortly  after  Paul  reached  Macedonia 
(after  the  riot  at  Ephesus)  to  Timothy,  who  is  about 
to  arrive  at  Ephesus. 

While  Paul  was  at  Ephesus  (third  journey),  he  sent 
Timothy  and  Erastus  to  Macedonia  (Acts  xix:22)  and 
then  on  to  Corinth  (i  Cor.  iv:i7;  xvi:io),  Erastus  re- 
maining there  (2  Tim.  iv:2o)  where  he  was  later  city 

the  three.  Probably  written  by  the  interpolator  of  2  Timothy  and  Titus. 
Redactor  wrote  to  provide  for  the  healthy  development  of  the  church  by 
the  instituting  of  safeguards  and  the  formulation  of  rules. 

Bartlet  makes  2  Timothy  iv:  9-13,  21-223,  a  note  written  between 
Ephesians  and  Philippians,  the  rest  of  2  Timothy  being  the  swan-song  of 
Paul. 

Harnack  thinks  the  Pastorals  as  we  have  them  have  had  three  inter- 
polators,— namely,  one  about  60  A.  D.,  one  no  A.  D.  and  one  115  A.  D, 
A  substantial  part  was  known  to  Polycarp. 


IO  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

treasurer  (Rom.  xvi:24).  Timothy  was  to  return  to 
Paul  at  Ephesus  (i  Cor.  xvi:n).  During  his  absence, 
Paul  wrote  I  Corinthians  (from  Ephesus)  and  sent  it 
to  Corinth  by  Titus,  who  then  probably  went  on  to  Dal- 
matia  (2  Tim.  iv:io),  from  whence  he  was  to  return 
after  some  time  to  Troas  (2  Cor.  ii:i3).  Since  2  Cor- 
inthians was  not  written  for  at  least  six  months,  or,  as 
many  think,  not  for  a  whole  year  (2  Cor.  viiino;  ix:2; 
xvi:i-2)  after  I  Corinthians  had  been  dispatched,  Titus 
would  have  had  ample  time  to  have  gone  to  Dalmatia. 
Paul,  who  had  intended  to  remain  at  Ephesus  until  Pen- 
tecost (i  Cor.  xvi:8),  left  sooner  than  he  had  planned 
to  do  because  of  the  circumstances  which  grew  out  of 
the  riot  in  the  Greek  theater  there;  but  before  he  went 
away  he  wrote  Timothy — who  was  expected  at  Ephesus 
(i  Cor.  xvini)  but  had  not  yet  arrived — a  letter  which 
he  left  at  Ephesus  for  him  (or  sent  to  him  somewhere 
else  just  before  Timothy  left  for  Ephesus).  In  this 
letter  (which  is  not  extant  to-day)  he  exhorted  Timothy 
to  tarry  at  Ephesus  (that  he  might  "  charge  certain  men 
not  to  teach  a  different  doctrine"  (i  Tim.  i:3;  Tit.  i:io, 
14)  ;  but  he  was  not  to  stay  there  long  (2  Tim.  iv  19)  and 
surely  not  until  winter  set  in  (2  Tim.  iv:2ia).  Paul 
wanted  to  stay  in  Ephesus  himself,  where  he  had  been 
for  three  years  (Acts  xx:3i),  but  it  was  not  expedient 
for  him  to  do  so.  The  Asiarchs  would  n't  even  let  him 
go  to  the  theater  during  the  riot  (Acts  xix:3i).  Alex- 
ander the  coppersmith  did  him  "much  evil"  (2  Tim. 
iv:i4)  ;  hence  it  was  not  safe  for  him  to  stay  at  Ephesus. 
So  he  left  that  city  shortly  after  the  riot,  sailing  from 
its  harbor  Miletus  where  he  left  Trophimus  sick  (2  Tim. 
iv:2o)  and  disembarked  at  Troas  (2  Cor.  ii:i3;  cf.  Acts 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  II 

xx  :i).  Here  he  had  hoped  to  find  Titus  (2  Cor.  ii:i3), 
but  in  this  he  was  disappointed,  for  Titus  had  not  yet 
returned  from  Dalmatia  (2  Tim.  iv:io).  (The  fact  that 
Paul  did  not  know  the  exact  time  when  Titus  was  to 
be  in  Troas  favors  the  possibility  that  Titus  went  to  Dal- 
matia.1) Paul  then  went  on  alone  to  Macedonia,  in  all 
probability  to  Philippi,  where  he  immediately  wrote  Tim- 
othy (who  had  not  arrived  at  Ephesus,  but  was  some- 
where else,  perhaps  at  his  old  home  at  Lystra,  but  would 
soon  be  at  Ephesus).  This  explains  2  Timothy  iv:i2 
(Tychicus)  and  20  (Erastus).  This  letter  (or  note) 
is  2  Timothy  iv:9~2ia.  In  his  previous  letter  (which 
he  left  at  Ephesus  for  Timothy — not  now  extant)  Paul 
exhorted  him  to  tarry  at  Ephesus  (i  Tim.  i:3),  although 
not  long  (iv:9  and  2ia — shown  also  by  the  word  tarry)  ; 
but  now  he  wants  him  to  come  to  him  to  Macedonia — 
i.  e.  Philippi.2  The  rest  had  all  gone  elsewhere.  Demas, 
who  may  have  accompanied  Paul  as  far  as  Philippi,  had 
gone  on  to  Thessalonica  (2  Tim.  iv:io)  (having  given 
up  Christianity  temporarily  perhaps  [a  reason  for  which 
we  shall  see  presently],  but  is  later  with  Paul  in  Rome 
(Col.  iv:i4;  Phile.  24).  Both  he  and  Mark  left  Paul, 
but  returned  to  him  later.)  Crescens  had  gone  to  Galatia 
(2  Tim.  iv  no)  ;  Titus  had  not  yet  returned  from  Dalmatia 
(2  Tim.  iv:io);  Tychicus  had  been  sent  to  Ephesus 
(iv:i2).  In  this  letter  Timothy  is  warned  against  Alex- 
ander the  Ephesian  (the  coppersmith),  who  greatly 

1  Our  theory  of  the  Pastorals  does  not  depend  on  Timothy's  going  to  Dal- 
matia,  nor  on  Paul's  going  to  Crete,   nor  on  Laodicea  as  place  of  compo- 
sition  of    i    Timothy,   etc.     These   are   only   probabilities,   but   with   reason 
back  of  them. 

2  Only  Luke  is  with  him  there   (2  Tim.  iv:  u),  having  stopped  there  on 
the    second   journey,    where    he    made    headquarters    until    Paul    starts    for 
Jerusalem   on   the   third   journey.     The    "we"    sections    show   this. 


12  PACIFIC  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

"withstood  Paul's  words"  (2  Tim.  iv:i4-i5;  cf.  I  Tim. 
1:20;  I  Tim.  i  13)  ;  he  salutes  Prisca  and  Aquila,  who  were 
still  at  Ephesus  (2  Tim.  iv:i9)  and  had  a  church  in 
their  house  there  (i  Cor.  xvi:i9;  cf.  Acts  xviii:i8); 
sends  greetings  to  Onesiphorus,  an  Ephesian  (iv:i9;  cf. 
i  :i8)  ;  tells  Timothy  that  he  left  Trophimus  at  Miletus 
sick  (2  Tim.  iv:2o)  when  sailing  from  there  after  leaving 
Ephesus;  asks  Timothy  to  stop  at  Troas  on  his  way  to 
Macedonia  and  bring  the  cloak  which  he  had  left  with 
Carpus  (2  Tim.  iv:i3)  on  his  recent  sojourn  there  (2  Cor. 
ii:i3);  wants  his  books  and  parchments  also  (2  Tim. 
iv:i3).  He  had  left  Ephesus  without  packing  up  his 
effects,  especially  his  books,  of  which  he  probably  had 
quite  a  collection,  having  taught  at  Ephesus  for  so  long 
(three  years,  Acts  xx:3i)  ;  he  requests  Timothy  to  come 
soon,  at  least  before  the  winter  set  in  (iv:2i),  as  he  would 
need  his  cloak  then.  Timothy  does  as  requested  and  joins 
Paul  in  Macedonia  (2  Cor.  i:i). 

This  interpretation  of  the  section  in  question  (2  Tim. 
iv:9~2ia)  seems  more  reasonable  and  natural  than  any 
other  hitherto  given.  The  greatest  obstacle  to  its  accept- 
ance are  verses  16  and  17  of  chapter  four.  We  shall 
examine  them.  Some  writers  think  that  Paul  made  the 
"first  defense"  (referred  to  in  these  verses)  at  Rome, 
and  imply  that  he  was  there  now  for  a  second  defense. 
Such  a  view  takes  too  much  for  granted.  Even  if  this 
defense  was  made  at  Rome,  there  is  no  evidence  that 
he  was  set  free,  for  he  may  have  made  a  number  of 
defenses  and  never  been  given  his  liberty.  Or  if  he  was 
in  bonds  when  he  made  this  "  first "  defense,  he  might 
have  been  somewhere  else  than  at  Rome,  since  he  was 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  13 

seven  times  in  captivity  (Clement  of  Rome  I  Cor.  v). 
The  defense  here  referred  to  was  unquestionably  made  at 
Ephesus.  The  town  clerk  stopped  the  riot  and  told 
Demetrius  the  silversmith  and  the  craftsmen  with  him 
that  if  they  "  have  a  matter  against  any  man,  the  courts 
are  open  and  there  are  proconsuls"  (Acts  xix:38). 
Hence  there  was  no  occasion  of  going  to  Rome  to  be 
tried.  Paul  in  all  probability  was  brought  before  the 
courts  at  Ephesus.  Luke,  who  gives  a  very  scanty  record 
here  (Acts  xx:i-2),  does  not  record  this,  just  as  he 
does  not  record  other  imprisonments  of  Paul  elsewhere 
(referred  to  by  Clement  of  Rome)  or  the  occurrences  in 
2  Corinthians  xi  :23f,  or  the  trip  to  Arabia,  or  any  men- 
tion of  Titus  anywhere  and  many  other  events.  There 
was  good  reason  for  his  not  recording  this  great  blow  to 
the  Christian  Church.  But  all  the  craftsmen,  and  especial- 
ly Alexander  the  coppersmith  (2  Tim.  iv:i4;  I  Tim. 
1:20),  had  grievances  against  Paul,  who  was  ruining 
their  respective  trades.  At  his  "first  defense"  (imply- 
ing that  he  made  others  there)  this  Alexander  did  him 
much  "evil"  (2  Tim.  iv:i4)  and  greatly  "withstood 
his  words"  (2  Tim.  iv:i5).  It  was  this  Alexander 
who,  when  he  rose  to  speak  in  the  Greek  theater,  was 
drowned  down  by  two  hours  of  "  yelling  "  (Acts  xix  133). 
He,  although  he  may  not  have  been  a  Jew  (although  he 
probably  was),  was  put  forward  by  the  Jews  that  he  might 
clear  them  in  the  eyes  of  the  Gentile  Ephesians.  These 
Jews  wanted  the  Ephesians  to  know  distinctly  that  they 
did  not  agree  with  Paul  (even  if  he  was  also  a  Jew 
by  race).  Their  doctrine  was  different  from  Paul's. 
This  Alexander  probably  did  speak  after  the  "  yelling  " 
ceased  (or  when  Paul  made  his  defense  before  he  left 


14  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

Ephesus).  Paul,  in  all  probability,  did  make  a  defense, 
or  several  of  them,  before  he  left  Ephesus  (even  though 
not  in  chains).  It  was  at  his  "  first  defense"  there  that 
none  of  Paul's  friends  "  took  his  part,"  but  "  all  for- 
sook him  and  fled"  (2  Tim.  iv:i6).  Paul  had  even 
despaired  of  his  life  there  (2  Cor.  i:8-io;  cf.  i:3,  5,  6)  ; 
but  the  Lord  stood  by  him  and  delivered  him  out  of  the 
"mouth  of  the  lion"  (2  Tim.  iv:i7;  cf.  2  Cor.  i:io) 
and  strengthened  him  that  his  message  might  be  fully 
proclaimed  and  that  "  all  the  Gentiles  might  hear " 
(2  Tim.  iv:i7).  Had  Paul  lost  his  life  in  Ephesus  at 
this  time,  a  great  part  of  the  Gentile  world — Illyricum, 
Crete  and  Rome — would  never  have  seen  him  (cf.  Tit. 
1:5;  Rom.  xv  119). 

This  is  the  proper  interpretation  of  this  incident  at 
Ephesus.  Hence  all  difficulties  are  removed  and  2  Tim- 
othy iv:9-2ia,  as  it  stands — without  interpolation — was 
written  in  Macedonia — i.  e.  at  Philippi — to  Timothy  at 
Ephesus,  although  the  letter  may  have  arrived  there 
shortly  before  Timothy  did. 

ITINERARY   CONTINUED. 

As  already  stated,  Timothy  joined  Paul  at  Philippi.  At 
about  the  same  time  that  he  arrives  there  Titus  returns 
from  Dalmatia  (whither  he  had  gone  after  leaving  Cor- 
inth—  2  Cor.  vii:6;  2  Tim.  iv:io)  and  tells  Paul  of  the 
reception  which  his  letter  to  the  Corinthian  church  had 
had  by  the  church  there.  Whereupon  Paul,  assisted  by 
Timothy  (2  Cor.  i:i),  immediately  writes  2  Corinthians 
which  Titus  (accompanied  by  Luke  and  some  one  else— 
perhaps  Mark)  takes  to  Corinth  (2  Cor.  viii:i8).  Then 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS.  15 

Paul,  after  sending  Timothy  to  Ephesus,  probably  fol- 
lowed Titus  and  Luke  to  Corinth  (2  Cor.  ix:5)  from 
whence  all  three  set  out  for  Crete,  where,  after  a  brief 
visit,  Paul  left  Titus  (Tit.  i:5),  who  remained  there — 
he  not  being  in  the  lists  (Acts  xx  14)  of  those  leaving  with 
Paul  for  Jerusalem — while  he,  accompanied  by  Luke 
who  had  been  appointed  by  the  churches  to  travel  with 
Paul  (2  Cor.  viiiiiQ),  returned  via  Asia  Minor,  perhaps, 
stopping  among  other  places  at  Laodicea  where  he  wrote 
i  Timothy.  That  he  wrote  I  Timothy  here,  we  have 
the  manuscript  authority  of  A.  K.  L.  £.  etc.,  the  only 
manuscripts  which  mention  name  of  place  where  this  letter 
was  composed  (cf.  note  at  the  end  of  the  first  epistle 
to  Timothy  in  Tischendorfs  text).  Paul  then  went  on 
to  Macedonia  and  Illyricum  (Acts  xx:2;  Rom.  xv:i9). 
Here  in  Illyricum  somewhere,  or  more  probably  in  Mace- 
donia or  Achaia  and  not  far  from  Nicopolis,  Paul  wrote 
the  letter  to  Titus  which  was  sent  out  by  Zenas  and 
Apollos  (Tit.  iii:i3).  Manuscript  evidence  asserts  that 
this  letter  was  written  from  Nicopolis  (cf.  A.  P.  K.  H.  L. 
116,  47,  113,  123,  cop.,  syrP  etc.  and  the  texts  of  Gries- 
bach  and  Scholtz;  see  note  at  end  of  epistle  in  Tischen- 
dorfs text).  This  is  not  quite  the  truth  as  we  see  from 
Titus  iii:i2,  where  Paul  says:  "Give  diligence  to  come 
unto  me  to  Nicopolis,  for  there  ( e*ei )  I  have  deter- 
mined (  KfKpiKa  )  to  winter,"  implying  that  he  had  not 
yet  arrived  there;  but  the  letter  must  have  been  written 
near  that  city,  and  its  bearers — Zenas  and  Apollos  (Tit. 
iii:i3) — in  all  probability  set  out  from  that  harbor  when 
going  to  Crete.1  The  letter  was  written  before  winter 

1  Nicopolis   was   situated  in  Epirus  opposite   Actium  and  was  about  one 
hundred   and   forty   miles   northwest   from    Corinth   and   one   hundred   and 


l6  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

(Tit.  iii:i2)  and  before  Paul's  three  months  in  Achaia 
and  hence  before  he  went  to  Rome.  We  do  not  know 
whether  Paul  ever  sent  Artemas  or  Tychicus  for  Titus, 
as  planned,  or  not;  or  that  Titus  joined  him  in  Nicopolis ; 
yet  Paul  may  easily  have  spent  a  part  of  the  winter  there. 
Of  course  room  must  be  left  for  a  three  months'  sojourn 
in  Achaia  (Corinth)  (Acts  xx:3)  before  the  Passover 
(Acts  xx  :6).  Now,  if  the  Passover  came  late  that  year. 
Paul  may  have  spent  all  of  December  at  least  and  part 
of  January  at  Nicopolis  and  Titus  may  have  been  with 
him  there,  returning  later  to  Crete  (or  somewhere)  as 
he  is  not  one  of  those  leaving  with  Paul  for  Jerusalem 
(Acts  xx  14).  After  the  days  of  "unleavened  bread" 
(Passover)  Paul  left  Philippi  (Acts  xxi/j.)  and  attended 
the  feast  of  Pentecost  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xx  :i6, ;  xxi  117). 

SUMMARY. 

Following  the  itinerary  thus  presented,  then,  we  find 
(i)  that  2  Timothy  iv  19-21  a  was  written  by  Paul 
(shortly  after  the  riot  at  Ephesus)  in  Macedonia  (in  all 
probability  at  Philippi)  to  Timothy  on  or  shortly  before 
his  arrival  at  Ephesus;  (2)  I  Timothy  was  written  at 
Laodicea  where  Paul  and  Luke  arrive  from  Crete;  (3) 
a  few  days  or  a  week  or  more  later,  Titus  was  written 
somewhere  near  Nicopolis  and  sent  out  from  there; 
(4)  last  of  all,  2  Timothy  (with  exception  of  iv:9-2ia 
was  written  by  Paul  during  the  very  last  of  his  one  im- 
prisonment at  Rome. 

sixty-eight  miles  southwest  from  Thessalonica.  As  its  name  indicates,  this 
was  a  "city  of  victory,"  being  founded  on  the  spot  where  Octavius'  troops 
encamped  on  the  night  before  the  famous  battle  of  Actium  in  31  B.  C. 
in  which  Antony's  troops  were  defeated.  In  Paul's  day,  Nicopolis  had 
become  the  great  city  and  harbor  of  all  that  western  coast  and  we  are 
not  surprised  to  find  Paul  planning  to  spend  some  time  there  (Tit.  iii:  12). 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  17 

WHAT   OF   THE  PASTORALS? 

They  stand  or  fall  together.  Their  style  betrays  a 
common  author.  That  author  we  believe  was  Paul. 
Most  arguments  put  forth  hitherto  for  such  authorship 
hold  (with  some  modifications)  still.  But  I  Timothy 
and  Titus,  according  to  our  theory,  were  written  not 
after  a  release  from  prison  and  shortly  before  2  Timothy, 
but  before  Paul's  final  trip  to  Jerusalem  (about  58  A.  D.), 
four  or  five  or  more  years  before  2  Timothy,  which  was 
written  during  the  very  last  part  of  Paul's  only  Romati 
imprisonment — i.  e.  seven  or  eight  years  earlier  than 
the  date  usually  held  for  their  composition. 

We  shall  examine  the  Pastorals  now  individually  from 
this  new  point  of  view. 

FIRST    TIMOTHY. 

This  epistle  was  written  somewhere  not  far  from 
Ephesus.  As  we  have  already  shown,  it  was  probably 
written  at  Laodicea.  Hitherto,  the  possibility  of  such 
a  theory  has  seemed  unreasonable;  but  according  to  our 
itinerary  and  the  manuscript  evidence  presented,  such 
now  seems  most  reasonable.  Thus  Paul  after  his  visit 
to  Titus  in  Crete,  returned  via  Asia  Minor,  stopping  at 
Laodicea  (one  hundred  miles  east  of  Ephesus  where 
Timothy  now  was).  He  may  have  visited  other  cities 
in  the  vicinity,  but  here  at  Laodicea  he  wrote  to  Timothy 
(i.  e.  i  Timothy).  The  whole  thought  in  the  epistle  suits 
such  a  view.  This  epistle  must  have  been  written 
shortly  after  Paul  left  Ephesus.  According  to  our  itin- 
erary, he  would  have  reached  Laodicea  within  a  very  few 
weeks  thereafter  (Ephesus,  Miletus,  Troas,  Philippi — 


1 8  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

where  Timothy  joins  him  and  they  together  write  2  Cor- 
inthians in  the  early  autumn — Crete  and  then  to  Lao- 
dicea).  The  epistle  was  doubtless  written  from  Laodicea. 
Aside  from  the  plausibility  of  Laodicea  as  the  place  of 
its  composition  and  aside  from  the  manuscript  evidence 
to  that  effect,  is  the  extensive  mention  of  riches  in  I  Tim- 
othy vi  19-10  and  17-19  (which  redactors  hitherto  have 
regarded  as  interpolations).  Paul  is  now  in  the  rich 
city  of  Laodicea  which  was  full  of  bankers  and  capitalists. 
Tacitus  tells  us  it  was  so  rich  that  after  the  earthquake 
in  6 1  A.  D.  it  rose  again  quickly  without  any  assistance 
from  the  state  (Annals  xvi:27)  ;  "because  thou  sayest  I 
am^rich  and  have  gotten  riches  and  have  need  of  noth- 
ing" (Rev.  iii:i7).  Paul  while  sojourning  in  this  rich 
city  has  had  his  attention  vividly  called  to  the  rich  and 
their  manner  of  life  and  very  naturally  puts  in  a  note 
on  the  rich  and  riches  and  could  naturally  have  written 
i  Timothy  vi  :io.  Occasion  and  Historical  Setting  of  the 
Letter.  Paul's  work  had  been  disastrously  interrupted  at 
Ephesus.  Great  harm  had  been  done  to  the  church  there. 
Its  leader  had  been  compelled  to  leave  the  city  and  could 
not  return  there  just  yet,  if  ever,  (although  Paul  hoped 
to  return  I  Tim.  iii:i4).  In  the  mean  time  who  was 
to  guide  the  affairs  of  this  most  important  church  in 
Christendom  where  Paul  had  stayed  longer  than  at  any 
place  in  all  his  travels  ?  The  whole  future  of  Christianity 
depended  more  on  the  future  of  this  church  than  on  any- 
thing else.  It  was  in  a  most  critical  condition.  Not  only 
had  it  lost  its  leader,  Paul,  but  doctrines  different  from 
his  were  being  taught  (i  Tim.  i:i).  These  doctrines 
were  Jewish  in  character  (cf.  Lock — Hastings'  Diction- 
ary, pp.  770-771 — for  summary  of  these).  If  ever  a 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  19 

church  needed  a  leader  and  instructions,  it  was  this  one 
at  this  time;  if  ever  a  church  needed  to  be  organized, 
it  was  the  one  now  at  Ephesus ;  and  if  ever  a  leader  needed 
help,  it  was  Timothy  at  this  time.  Paul  writes  to  Timothy, 
who  had  been  sent  to  this  most  difficult  post  and  put  in 
complete  charge  there,  and  tells  him  what  officers  the 
church  ought  to  have  (i  Tim.  iii:i-i3)  and  what  their 
qualifications  should  be  (i  Tirn.  ii  18-15)  and  how  service 
should  be  conducted  (i  Tim.  iii:i5 — i.  e.  Iva.  ei&Js  TTWS  Set 
\v  oiKo>  Oeov  dva<rre'<£eo-0(u) .  Paul  (speaking  of  church 
officers  and  church  organization)  says,  "  these  things 
write  I  unto  thee  .  .  .  that  thou  mayest  know  how  things 
ought  to  be  carried  on  in  the  house  of  God  which  is  the 
church  of  the  living  God"  (i  Tim.  111:14-15).  This  is 
Paul's  account  of  church  organization  and  we  see  the 
need  of  it  and  why  he  wrote  on  this  subject  at  this 
time.  At  no  time  in  Paul's  life  did  a  church  need  an 
authoritative  leader  as  the  Ephesian  did  at  this  time 
and  at  no  time  after  his  death  is  there  a  place  for  the 
establishment  of  church  organization  half  so  fitting  as 
at  this  time  when  authoritative  leadership  and  closer 
organization  was  the  only  mode  of  procedure.  A  church 
well  organized  and  officered  was  the  most  effective  means 
of  opposing  heresy.  Timothy  himself  was  to  take  Paul's 
place  and  was  given  full  apostolic  power  (i  Tim. 
iv:i4-i6)  ;  he  had  received  this  gift  already;  it  was  a  gift 
of  prophecy  (i  Tim.  iv:i4;  1:18),  received  by  the  laying 
on  of  Paul's  hands  (2  Tim.  i:6;  i  Tim.  iv:i4)  ;  he  was 
not  to  neglect  this  gift  now  (i  Tim.  iv:i4),  but  to  stir 
it  up  (2  Tim.  i  :6)  ;  he  was  to  give  heed  to  "  reading,  to 
exhortation,  to  teaching"  (i  Tim.  iv:i3).  He  was 
young  to  receive  such  an  appointment  and  timid  (i  Cor. 


20  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

xvi:io-ii)  and  apt  to  shrink  from  asserting  the  authority 
which  such  an  office  would  demand  and  especially  under 
the  conditions  at  Ephesus  at  this  time ;  hence  Paul  writes 
him,  saying,  "  let  no  one  despise  thy  youth "  ( I  Tim. 
iv:i2)  and  to  "  take  heed  to  thyself  and  to  thy  teaching; 
.  .  .  for  in  doing  this  thou  shalt  save  both  thyself  and 
them  that  hear  thee"  (i  Tim.  iv:i6).  Timothy  is  younger 
now  than  he  would  be  seven  or  eight  years  later  (on  any 
other  theory)  and  hence  more  reason  for  this  remark. 
Paul,  for  good  reasons,  could  not  go  to  Ephesus  at  this 
time  and  the  church  there  could  be  saved  only  by  putting 
some  one  in  charge  who  had  no  less  authority  than  he 
himself  possessed,  and  heresy  could  best  be  held  in  check 
by  a  closer  organization  of  those  who  were  to  assist  him 
in  the  management  of  church  affairs. 

The  only  new  term  which  meets  us  here,  however,  is 
that  of  "  bishop."  Later  in  prison  at  Rome,  Paul  ad- 
dressed his  letter  to  the  Philippians  to  the  saints  with 
the  "bishops  and  deacons"  at  Philippi  (Philippians  i:i) 
not  implying  that  the  term  was  anything  new,  but  the 
contrary.  The  fact  that  he  does  not  define  the  term 
there  shows  that  it  was  in  existence.  The  place  to  speak 
of  a  bishop  and  his  duties  was  when  that  office  was  in- 
stituted and  that  time  was  when  he  wrote  i  Timothy. 
The  idea  of  deacon  is  not  entirely  new  (cp.  Acts  vi). 
There  were  elders  before  this.  Paul  and  Barnabas  took 
the  collection  to  the  elders  at  Jerusalem  from  Antioch 
(Acts  xi  130)  ;  but  the  duties  of  deacons  were  more  de- 
veloped at  this  time  and  their  qualifications  specified,  and 
the  same  may  be  said  of  elders  (i  Tim.  v:i7)  and  the 
qualifications  for  bishops,  although  the  bishop  and  elder 
in  i  Timothy  were  probably  the  same.  They  were  in 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  21 

Titus  (Tit.  i  15,  7),  and  also  in  Acts  (xx  117-28)  where  the 
terms  are  interchangeably  used  some  months  later  by 
Paul  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem.  The  elder  and  bishop  are 
thus  probably  the  same  in  I  Timothy  also.  Later,  in  the 
time  of  Ignatius,  one  of  the  elders  was  over  the  others 
with  the  distinctive  title  of  bishop;  but  when  the  term 
was  first  introduced — namely,  here — the  bishop  and  elder 
were  the  same. 

If  what  has  already  been  said  is  true,  the  genuineness 
of  i  Timothy  as  we  have  it  should  not  be  questioned.  All 
references  to  church  organization  fit  into  this  scheme  as 
they  do  into  no  other,  and  as  to  false  teachers  and  their 
teachings,  there  is  nothing  referred  to  in  this  epistle  that 
might  not  well  have  been  said  by  Paul  when  we  con- 
sider the  conditions  under  which  he  left  Ephesus.  The 
false  teachings  hinted  at  are  nothing  so  far  developed  as 
those  we  find  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  and  Ephe- 
sians  (which  were  written  later  in  prison,  or  in  2  Tim- 
othy (ii:28),  the  last  of  all  his  writings),  but  was 
incipient  gnosticism  in  its  earliest  stage. 

It  has  been  objected  that  a  hymn  or  part  of  a  ritual 
is  found  in  I  Tim.  iii:i6,  which  shows  late  compo- 
sition. But  this  is  nothing  startling,  for  Paul  had  been 
at  Ephesus  three  years  where  they  had  doubtless  worked 
out  details  of  service.  The  Jews  in  their  synagogues  had 
hymns;  they  sang  a  hymn  at  the  Passover  celebration 
(Mark  xiv:26).  In  Acts  ii:42,  "they  gave  attention  to 
the  prayers"  and  broke  out  into  a  hymn  (Acts  iv:24)  ; 
in  Colossians  iii:i6,  they  sang  "psalms  and  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs"  (also,  Eph.  v:i8).  Evidence  of  songs  or 
ritual  is  not  against  early  composition. 

Again,  evidence  of  late  composition  is  said  to  be  found 


22  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

in  I  Timothy  ii  :2,  where  prayer  is  offered  for  "  kings  and 
all  in  high  places " ;  but  after  Paul's  experience  in  the 
courts  at  Ephesus,  we  are  not  surprised  that  instruction 
should  be  given  to  pray  for  all  those  in  authority,  espe- 
cially when  we  see  the  purpose  of  such  prayer — i.  e.  "  that 
we  may  lead  a  tranquil  and  quiet  life"  (i  Tim.  ii:2). 

The  greatest  objection  to  the  genuineness  of  i  Timothy 
is  its  vocabulary  (the  same  objection  applying  to  the 
other  two  also).  Many  characteristically  Pauline  words 
are  not  found  in  this  epistle  and,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
contain  about  thirty-five  words  not  found  in  Paul  else- 
where (cf.  Holtzmann's  "  Pastoralbriefe,"  s.  100).  But 
the  remarkable  thing  about  this  is,  that  these  same  words 
are  found  in  Luke's  writings.  This  is  suggestive  and 
probably  means  that  Luke  was  Paul's  amanuensis  when 
these  letters  were  written.  He  probably  was.  He  could 
well  have  been.  Luke  accompanied  Titus  from  Macedonia 
to  Corinth  with  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  and 
may  well  have  gone  on  to  Crete  with  him  and  a  little  later 
have  left  there  with  Paul  for  Asia  Minor  and  was  still 
with  him  when  he  wrote  i  Timothy  from  Laodicea.  Luke 
was  appointed  by  the  churches  to  go  with  Paul  (2  Cor. 
viii:i9) — "appointed  by  the  churches  to  travel  with  Paul 
in  matters  of  this  grace"  (collections).  We  should  be 
surprised  if  he  was  not  with  Paul  there.  Luke  was  with 
Paul  when  he  wrote  the  small  letter  (2  Tim.  iv:9-2ia; 
cf.  iv:ii).  This  small  letter  was  written  before  winter 
(2  Tim.  iv:2ia;  2  Tim.  iv:9)  and  Titus  (which  was 
written  shortly  after  i  Timothy)  was  also  written  before 
winter  (Tit.  iii:i2).  This  means  that  the  fragment 
letter  and  Titus  were  written  not  far  apart  and  as  Luke 
was  present  in  the  one  case,  he  probably  was  also  in  the 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  23 

other.      He   probably  became   a   constant   companion   of 
Paul  from  Crete  (or  at  least  from  Laodicea)  on,  although 
we  have  no  assurance  that  he  was  with  Paul  during  his 
three  months  at  Corinth ;  Tertius  was  Paul's  amanuensis 
when  he  wrote  Romans  from  there  (Rom.  xvi:22),  but 
Luke  leaves  Philippi  with  Paul  when  the  latter  starts  for 
Jerusalem    ("we"   sections  begin   in  the  account   from 
there)   and  accompanies  him  to  that  city  and  to  Rome 
(last  "we"  section),  where  he  is  still  with  Paul  when 
Colossians  (iv:i4)  and  Philemon  (vs.  24)  were  written. 
It  is  quite  reasonable,  then,  to  suppose  that  Luke  was 
with  Paul  at  Laodicea  and  helped  with  the  composition 
of  i  Timothy  (as  also  with  the  epistle  to  Titus  a  little 
later)  and  four  or  more  years  later  helped  with  the  com- 
position of  2  Timothy  last  of  all  near  the  end  of  his  life. 
Such  a  supposition,  if  proven  true,  accounts  for  the  un- 
Pauline  vocabulary  and  especially  so  since  many  of  these 
un- Pauline  words  are  found  in  Luke's  writings  (cf.  Lock, 
ad  loc.,  in  Hastings).    Hence  the  difficult  question  about 
vocabulary   and   style   vanishes   and  the   epistle   is   still 
Pauline,  the  composition  being  left  somewhat  more  than 
usual  to  the  amanuensis  (Luke).    We  should  expect  dif- 
ferent vocabulary  in  the  Pastorals,  also,  because  Timothy 
is  not  with  Paul  when  they  were  composed  as  he  had  been 
when  at  least  six  of  his  epistles  were  written — i.  e.  I  Thes- 
salonians,    2    Thessalonians,    2    Corinthians,    Colossians, 
Philemon,  Philippians   (and  likely  when  Ephesians  was 
composed)  ;  he  was  probably  with  Paul  also  when  Gala- 
tians  was  written,  especially  if  written  at  Antioch  in  Syria. 
Ramsay  thinks  Paul  received  his  information  about  the 
Galatian  church  from  Timothy  and  that  he  was  with  him 
when  the  Galatian  letter  was  composed.     In  the  epistle 


24  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

to  the  Romans,  Timothy  sends  greetings,  although  Tertius 
was  the  amanuensis  of  this  letter.  Timothy,  then,  was 
present  at  the  writing  of  every  letter  of  Paul  except  I 
Corinthians  and  the  Pastorals.  What  wonder,  then,  if  the 
vocabulary  in  the  latter  is  different.  The  presence  of 
Luke  as  amanuensis  and  the  absence  of  Timothy  would 
account  for  this.1  I  Timothy  is  a  unit  as  it  stands,  and 
there  is  no  need  to  assume  a  redactor  or  an  interpolator 
under  the  present  theory. 

TITUS. 

What  of  Titus  according  to  our  theory  ?  As  has  already 
been  shown,  it  was  composed  shortly  after  I.  Timothy 
(probably  the  next  week,  or  very  soon).  It  was  com- 
posed before  winter  (Tit.  iii:i2)  and  near  Nicopolis 
somewhere  and  just  before  Paul  went  to  Corinth  for  his 
three  months'  stay  there,  but  mailed  from  Nicopolis. 

Occasion.  Zenas  the  lawyer  and  Apollos  (Tit.  iii:i3) 
were  to  stop  at  Crete  on  a  journey  and  Paul  takes 
advantage  of  this  to  send  a  letter  to  Titus,  whom  he 
had  left  there  recently  (Tit.  1:5),  insisting  that  he  enforce 
a  "  high  moral  standard  in  Crete  in  spite  of  the  danger- 
ous tendencies  of  the  false  teachers "  and  requests 
him  to  be  ready  to  join  him  in  Nicopolis  (where  he 
is  to  winter)  a  little  later  when  he  shall  send  for  him. 
Genuineness.  The  epistle  claims  to  be  Pauline;  external 
evidence  for  it  is  good.  The  a7m£  Aey<yieva  are  to  be  ac- 
counted for  in  the  same  manner  as  in  i  Timothy.  Neither 
false  teaching  nor  church  organization  imply  a  later  period 

1  Timothy  is  thought  by  many  to  have  composed  2  Thessalonians  almost 
entirely,  and  for  this  reason  its  style  differs  so  much  from  that  of  i  Thes- 
salonians. 


INAUGURAL   ADDRESS.  25 

than  Paul.  The  false  teaching  is  mainly  Jewish — genealo- 
gies, law  and  legends  of  patriarchal  history  (Tit.  i:io-n  ; 
i:i4)  ;  it  is  disastrous  (i:n)  ;  false  teachers  losing  respect 
for  Titus  (i:io;  iii:io),  as  they  had  for  Paul  long 
before  in  Corinth  and  elsewhere;  Titus  given  all  author- 
ity (Tit.  ii:i5);  false  teachers  professing  knowledge 
of  God,  but  denying  him  by  their  abominable  lives. 
There  is  no  second-century  gnosticism  depicted  here. 
Church  organisation  is  not  too  far  advanced  to  disfavor 
Pauline  authorship.  No  mention  of  deacons,  deaconesses 
or  widows  in  Titus,  but  only  of  elders  and  bishops  (who 
were  the  same  (Tit.  i:5,  7)  as  they  probably  were  in  I 
Timothy).  Organization  is  not  so  much  dwelt  on  in  this 
epistle  as  in  I  Timothy  (already  written).  But  this  is 
natural.  Paul  had  much  reason  to  write  at  length  on  that 
subject  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus  where  he  himself  had 
labored  three  years  and  under  circumstances  which  he 
left  there  and  the  great  need  of  the  church  at  Ephesus 
of  authoritative  leadership  and  the  bearing  which  all  this 
had  to  the  future  of  Christianity.  The  situation  when  writ- 
ing to  Titus  was  different.  No  occasion  for  so  much  to  be 
said  on  this  subject  in  a  letter  to  Titus  as  in  Crete  only 
elders  were  to  be  "  appointed  in  every  city,"  the  church 
there  being  still  in  crude  form,  although  the  elder  receives 
the  other  title  also — i.  e.  bishop — which  is  natural  after 
this  term  had  already  been  used— namely,  in  I  Timothy 
(previously  written).  Furthermore,  Paul  on  a  former 
occasion  had  talked  all  this  over  with  Titus  when  he  was 
in  Crete  (Tit.  i:5) — namely,  just  before  he  left  for  Lao 
dicea  where  he  wrote  Timothy  fully  on  that  subject.1 

1  Paul  thus  writes  at  length  on  the  subject  of  church  organization  to 
Timothy  at  Ephesus  (i  Tim),  briefly  later  to  Titus  (when  less  occasion"* 
and  says  nothing  about  it  at  all  in  2  Timothy  last  of  all,  there  being  no 
occasion  of  writing  Timothy  again  on  that  subject. 


26  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

Integrity  of  Titus.  Nothing,  according  to  our  theory, 
need  be  said  on  this  subject.  It  is  a  unit  as  it  stands. 
There  is  no  occasion  of  separating  it  into  parts  if  Pauline. 
This  has  only  been  done  by  those  who  think  the  epistle 
un-Pauline. 

WHAT   OF   SECOND   TIMOTHY? 

Place  and  time  of  composition.  As  has  been  already  seen, 
2  Timothy  iv:9~2ia  was  written  in  Macedonia  shortly 
after  Paul  left  Ephesus  after  the  riot  there,  while  the  rest 
of  the  epistle  (except  perhaps  i  115-18)  was  written  dur- 
ing his  only  imprisonment  at  Rome  (2  Tim.  i:8,  16-17; 
iv:2ib)  and  towards  the  very  close  of  his  life  (2  Tim. 
iv  15-7) .  Genuineness.  The  whole  epistle  is  genuine  even 
though  it  contain  two  letters.  In  fact,  if  the  epistle  was 
an  integral  as  we  have  it,  its  genuineness  could  scarcely 
be  maintained.  The  greatest  obstacle  to  its  genuineness 
is  its  vocabulary,  containing  as  it  does  forty-four  aira£ 
Aeyo/xeva  (cf.  Lock,  in  Hastings'  dictionary)  ;  but  these 
may  be  accounted  for  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the 
other  two  pastorals  (i.e.  presence  of  Luke  and  absence  of 
Timothy).  False  teachers.  Two  of  these  mentioned — 
namely,  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus — who  taught  that  the 
Resurrection  is  "already  past"  (2  Tim.  ii:i7-i8).  False 
doctrine  not  much  discussed  in  this  epistle,  but  Paul 
knows  that  imposters  will  wax  worse  and  worse  (2  Tim. 
iii:i2)  ;  sound  doctrine  will  not  be  heeded  long  (2  Tim. 
iv:3)  ;  Timothy  warned  to  preach  the  word  and  be  urgent 
in  season  and  out  of  season  (2  Tim.  iv:2)  ;  to  reprove, 
rebuke,  exhort,  etc.  (2  Tim.  iv:2)  and  make  use  of  the 
Scripture  he  has  learned  (2  Tim.  iii  :i6).  Church  organi- 
sation. Very  little  in  2  Timothy  on  this  subject,  the  most 


INAUGURAL  ADDRESS.  2? 

striking  statement  being  contained  in  2  Timothy  ii:2. 
There  is  no  reference  to  bishop  or  elder  or  deacon  or  any 
church  officer  in  the  whole  epistle  and  this  notwithstand- 
ing the  fact  that  this  is  the  last  epistle  Paul  ever  wrote. 
But  why  should  Paul  mention  this  subject  to  Timothy 
again?  He  had  written  fully  on  that  subject  to  him  in 
i  Timothy.  No  occasion  to  bring  that  subject  up  again. 
Paul  is  writing  now  his  last  charge  and  farewell  to  Tim- 
othy. His  departure  is  at  hand.  Occasion.  Paul  had 
heard  that  Timothy  was  discouraged  in  his  work  at  Ephe- 
sus  and  depressed  (2  Tim.  i  :7-8)  and  writes  to  encourage 
him  as  all  Christians  must  suffer  persecution  (2  Tim. 
Hi:  12);  to  give  him  advice  about  preaching  (2  Tim. 
iv:2)  ;  warns  him  against  unbelievers  who  will  arise  (2 
Tim.  iv:3~4)  and  gives  him  a  parting  word  (2  Tim. 
iv:5-8).  These  are  the  last  words  (extant  at  least)  Paul 
ever  wrote. 

CONCLUSION. 

We  hold  first  that  Paul  was  never  released  from  prison 
at  Rome.  As  to  the  Pastorals,  we  are  convinced  that  they 
are  genuine  Pauline  writings  and  integrals  as  we  have 
them  (except  2  Tim.  iv:9-2ia);  that  i  Tmothy  was 
written  first  and  from  Laodicea  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus 
when  the  church  there  was  passing  through  aj  crisis  more 
severe  than  any  church  had  ever  hitherto  experienced; 
that  Titus,  written  shortly  after  i  Timothy,  was  written 
somewhere  near  Nicopolis  and  sent  out  from  there  to 
Crete  (shortly  before  Paul  went  to  Corinth  for  three 
months  on  his  last  journey)  ;  and  that,  last  of  all,  four 
or  five  years  later  and  after  a  trip  to  Jerusalem  and  to 
Rome  and  while  in  prison  there  and  after  the  "  Christo- 


28  PACIFIC   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY. 

logical"  epistles  had  been  written,  2  Timothy  (except 
iv  19-213,  which  was  written  in  Macedonia  (at  Philippi) 
shortly  after  Paul  left  Ephesus)  was  written  by  Paul  at 
Rome  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  A  careful  exegesis  of  these 
epistles  with  these  facts  in  mind,  bears  out  this  theory  in 
every  detail.1 

1  New  order  of  Paul's  Epistles:  i  Thessalonians;  2  Thessalonians;  Gala- 
tians;  i  Corinthians;  2  Timothy  4:  g-2ia;  2  Corinthians;  i  Timothy;  Titus; 
Romans;  Ephesians;  Colossians;  Philemon;  Philippians ;  2  Timothy  (ex- 
cept 2  Tim.  ivj9-2ia). 


Gaylamount 
i  Pamphlet        «, 

Binder  k 

•      Gaylord  Bros..  Inc.  *4 
Stockton,  Calif.       ^ 
T.M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat.  Off.  * 


YD  !0393 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


